For many people, the most revealing moment in last week’s debate among Republican presidential candidates came when Rick Perry was asked about his record on capital punishment in Texas. Before Perry even had a chance to speak, the audience burst into applause, simply at the recitation of the fact that Perry as governor has signed off on the execution of 234 people.
This isn’t about whether capital punishment is justified; that’s something that reasonable people can disagree on. There’s a big further jump to get to the point where executions are something to cheer about.
But that’s where today’s Republican Party finds itself.
As Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly put it: “This isn’t just wrong; it’s scary. The fact that Republicans in the audience found this worthy of hearty applause points to a party that’s bankrupt in more ways than one.”
On a day when everyone is talking about “the day that changed America”, it seems to me that this is the really significant change; that over a period of just a few years, starting roughly with the Clinton impeachment of 1998 and extending into the aftermath of 9/11, the Republican Party left the “reality-based community” behind and became the sort of organisation that cheers invasion, torture and executions.
That change is in turn the most important ingredient for explaining the oddly disproportionate reaction of the US to the events of 10 years ago.
The Western world had been subject to many terrorist attacks in the previous 40 years, from the Red Army Faction to the Munich Olympics, the IRA bombings in London, the Achille Lauro, Oklahoma City and many more. The 9/11 attacks were bigger and more spectacular, but they were not qualitatively different; only the response was.
What had changed was that those in charge of the US government had a predisposition to military solutions, to the language of terror and apocalypse. The idea of terrorism as an “existential threat”, so mysterious otherwise, came naturally to them. That’s why extreme measures — war, torture, detention without trial — were adopted not in the manner of regrettable necessities, but with enthusiasm, even with pride.
Hence the reluctance to even try to bring their actions within the ambit of international law; UN approval was not just unnecessary but positively undesirable. Hence the repeated disdain for the rule of law at home, and disregard for even basic standards of truth as well as justice. Hence the choice, still almost unbelievable, to attack Democrats for being “opponents of torture”.
The response to Perry shows that since losing office the Republicans have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. The headlines may be about the deficit, health care and tax cuts, but the soul of the GOP is about lashing out violently at its real or imagined enemies.
Although I try to resist the temptations of hubris, I still think the best simple description of what happened is one I wrote nearly five years ago: “The US administration didn’t decide to throw away the rule book because it saw terrorism as an existential threat: it decided to portray terrorism as an existential threat because it wanted to throw away the rule book.”
You have to understand that in the US capital punishment is an issue, much like Roe vs Wade (Abortion) that divides the community, with strong dividing lines which tend to align (not perfectly) with voter intentions.
The rise in particularly drug-related violent crime over the decades has seen greater numbers of criminals sentenced to the death penalty in those states that support it.
The imposition of capital punishment is a state-based activity, as voted on by the electorate of that state.
Opponents of capital punishment realise that the electorates of capital punishment states generally support it’s retention and thus seek to introduce federal legislation to curb the state’s ability to enact the death penalty.
This runs hard up against a strong toughstone for conservative voters, which is state’s rights versus federal government intervention. As conservatives as a rule tend to support states rights, the use of capital punishment tends to also gain conservative support, as does the support for Roe vs Wade.
It’s not necessarily all Republican voters who think that capital punishment is right, obviously across a spectrum of voters some will have reservations, while some Democrats will support capital punishment, even though the majority Democrat position is against the death penalty.
It’s more a state vs federal issue, played out over decades, leaving entrenched attitudes on all sides.
RonaldReagantellsjokeaboutDemocrats.wmv
Wonder if you would be as harsh on Texas Gov Perry if you were the parent of Daniel Morcombe and they gave you the right to choose a fitting punishment for his perpetrator?
Invoking Christianity, blinded by, but thriving on, revenge – that’s “The Rupublican T-Party”.
Maybe they think in their righteousness that if an innocent person is executed, they can be brought back?
“The US administration didn’t decide to throw away the rule book because it saw terrorism as an existential threat: it decided to portray terrorism as an existential threat because it wanted to throw away the rule book.”
Quite possibly never a truer word written. More people should see fit to separate the actions of a President who overstepped presidential authority by a long shot from the citizens of the country who were attacked and murdered in an act of war and then betrayed by their own government into the bargain.
However, “Hence the reluctance to even try to bring their actions within the ambit of international law; UN approval was not just unnecessary but positively undesirable.”
UNSC Resolution 1368 was adopted by the Security Council at its 4370th meeting, on 12 September 2001.
The Security Council, Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,
1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;
2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the people and Government of the United States of America;
3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;
4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 (1999) of 19 October 1999;
5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;
6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
As for the capital punishment / 911 comparator, pushig the envelope, I think.